How to Use this Blog

NEW NEW NEW

OUR ADDRESS: http://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/

Howdy! We've amassed tons of information and important history on this blog since 2010. If you have a keyword, use the search box below. Also check out the reference section above. If you have a question or need help searching, use the contact form at the bottom of the blog.

ALSO, if you buy any of the books at the links provided, the editor will earn a small amount of money or commission. (we thank you) (that is our disclaimer statement)

This is a blog. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, not a sponsored publication... The ideas, news and thoughts posted are sourced… or written by the editor or contributors.

2018: 3/4 million+ Visitors/Readers! This blog was ranked #49 in top 100 blogs about adoption. Let's make it #1...

Search This Blog

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Broken: Choctaw Father in California Thwarted in Custody Battle With Foster Couple

Baby
A has been adrift in foster care for years. Born in November 2009, the
child’s non-Indian mother had disappeared soon after its birth. The
father, a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma who is from the Los
Angeles area, took over raising the child and was described by friends
and family as, says one, “a great father, who really tried his best to
step up.”
Currently, an appellate court in Los Angeles is reviewing whether or
not Baby A should be placed with relatives under the “preferred
placement preferences” of both state and federal Indian Child Welfare
statutes, or remain with a foster couple who are claiming “de facto
parent” status, with the same rights as biological parents. The foster
couple, Summer and Russell Page, are the child’s third foster home since
it was placed into state custody.
According to friends, family and court watchers with knowledge of the
case, all of whom declined to be identified because of the privacy
rights of a minor child, although Baby A’s father was “rough around the
edges,” he was a loving—even doting—parent. A mechanic for many years,
he was arrested and sentenced to jail in 2010 for grand theft auto and
selling stolen auto parts when the child was approximately a year old.
Since he was a single father with no other family in the area (his
Choctaw mother had recently passed away), Baby A was swept into the
oceanic California foster care system.
“He was not fumbling or unsure of himself,” says a friend of the
family who declined to be identified because of fear of retaliation by
the state. “It was clear that he was experienced with babies and
children and knew how to change a diaper and even used a particular kind
of diaper because he explained that his baby had sensitive skin and was
prone to diaper rash. Some guy uninterested in being a father wouldn't
even bother with that. He was a good parent in spite of his [jail
sentence].”
After the father was released from jail on December 31, 2011, his
child remained in foster care while he worked to complete a “case
plan”—which is a series of checklists, forms and services mandated by
the court, including parenting classes, drug testing and counseling. At
one point, he even had unmonitored day visits over weekends.
And yet he never regained custody of Baby A. Eighteen months and
three foster homes later, the process began to sputter as he kept
getting his hopes up, only to get more additions to his case plan. Even
though he had cleaned up his act, gotten a job, completed parenting
classes and a multitude of other mandated programs, the father began to
bristle at the seemingly endless demands placed on him by the Department
of Social Services. Friends say he fell into despair, and said he
considered the court keeping his child away from him as a punishment
that did not fit his crime. As a non-violent offender he felt he had
already paid his penance, including jail time and lengthy reunification
efforts with his child.
But there were other obstacles. Some of the court-ordered classes,
for example, were offered only during his work day, and he could not
take off because he had just gotten hired. He did not like the
court-ordered therapist he was sent to, but was not given the
opportunity to find another one. He went for his regularly scheduled
drug testing, but missed an appointment, which was marked as a
“positive” test under California law. Nonetheless, Baby A’s father felt
he was doing the best he could, according to friends.
Subsequently, sources close to the father say that he became “tired
and fed up” with the endless checklists and requirements. In the
meantime, bickering with the latest round of foster parents erupted
after the couple had “fallen in love with Baby A” and set their sights
on getting permanent custody of the child. According to people familiar
with the case, the Pages began to dictate the terms and length of
father's visits and began documenting a list of complaints, including
that Baby A “smelled like cigarettes” when the child returned from
visits with its father; that he “seemed intimidating,” among others.
Depressed and frustrated, he told friends and family in the summer of
2013 that he was “tired” of fighting with the Pages and what he called
DSS’s “stalling.” So, in order to maintain some kind of relationship
with his child, the father of Baby A requested that it be placed with
his relatives in Utah under the “preferred placement” provision of the
Indian Child Welfare Act. With the consultation and consent of the
Choctaw Nation, which has 175,000 members and is the third largest tribe
in the U.S., an ICWA-compliant home was found with extended relatives
in Utah.
In December 2013, however, a Los Angeles judge issued a stay denying
Baby A’s placement with its ICWA-compliant relatives in Utah pending
further appeal, citing the foster parents’ contention that they were now
the child’s “de facto” parents and that they had become “attached” to
the child.
According to family friends, Baby A’s father and extended family were
devastated by the decision. Legal experts contend the stay ignored five
key facts in the case: 1) That he is the biological Indian parent of
Baby A; 2) his parental rights have not been terminated; 3) that he
still has standing in the case; 4) that he therefore has a say in
determining where his child should be placed; and 5) that the Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma, who also has standing in this case, supports
father’s placement wishes.
But the concrete wall for the non-Indian foster parents and their
legal team, however, is the federal- and state-mandated placement
preferences under Section 1915(A) of the Indian Child Welfare Act, whose
specific requirements are as follows: “1. A member of the
child’s extended family; 2. A member of the child’s Indian tribe; 3.
Other Indian families; or 4. an institution for children approved by an
Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program
suitable to meet the Indian child's needs.” Additionally, the act
specifies that if an Indian child is to be placed into adoptive or
foster care that “the Indian child's tribe shall establish a different
order of preference by resolution, the agency or court effecting the
placement shall follow such order so long as the placement is the least
restrictive setting appropriate to the particular needs of the child.”
In January 2014, Lori Alvino McGill signed on as counsel for the Pages. Alvino McGill worked on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl last
year as a spokesperson for Veronica's mother, Christy Maldonado, who
had given Veronica up for adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco of
South Carolina before the girl’s birth in 2009. As Maldonado’s pro bono
counsel, Alvino McGill argued in the media and on social websites
against Veronica’s father Dusten Brown, using foul language and, in one
particularly heated late-night exchange on Facebook, referred to
Veronica’s biological father as a “sperm donor.”

Alvino McGill is collaborating on this case with Stephanie Grace, a
Harvard-educated attorney with Los Angeles-based Latham & Watkins,
who, as a third-year law student, came under fire in 2010 for an email
in which she asserted the following: “Everyone wants to take 100 white
infants and 100 African American infants and raise them in Disney utopia
and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or
at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not
100 percent convinced that this is the case.” The email was subsequently
forwarded to the Harvard Black Law Student Association.
Alvino McGill and Grace, along with four other attorneys, are seeking
to overturn ICWA in federal court on the basis that it is
“unconstitutional” for its race-based placement preferences. The team is
also seeking to terminate Baby A’s father’s parental rights, arguing
that the Pages should retain custody of the child.

Baby A, however, is not the first child this foster couple has tried
to adopt out of foster care. The first child was eventually reunited
with its parents—but only after they fought in court with the Pages to
regain custody.
“These folks are attempting to use foster care as an ad hoc adoption
agency, [but it] is not a rubber-stamp to adopt the kids in their care.”
says J. Eric Reed, member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and a
former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney who specializes in federal Indian
law. “They knew when they signed up for duty that foster care is only
temporary custody. They are meant only to care for the child until the
child is reunified with the biological parent. But now they're trying to
switch horses in the middle of the race again and gain permanent
custody with the help of Baby Veronica's legal team. But let's be clear:
Dad's parental rights have not been terminated. Therefore, under the
law, his rights are still in play. They cannot go into court and pretend
otherwise. To do so is not only a direct violation of ICWA, but
California State ICWA statutes, as well.”
Reed, who is now a Dallas-based criminal defense attorney in private
practice, says that states across the country “consistently mandate
complicated, near impossible goals” in their so-called reunification
plans for Indian parents that create a more favorable climate for the
adoption of these children by foster parents.

Jumping Through Hoops, Hoops and More Hoops
Across the United States, Native parents have complained that they
face seemingly never-ending rounds of requirements and checklists that
thwart their attempts to regain custody of their children after they
disappear into state custody.
The problem has become so widespread that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs commenced hearings at an ICWA Summit in Rapid City, South
Dakota, last year in which dozens of Indian parents testified before a
panel of approximately two dozen government officials, including
Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Washburn, that their parental and
human rights were routinely violated by the South Dakota Department of
Social Services, which forced them to “jump through hoop after hoop”
which did not result in being reunified with their children.
Since those hearings in Rapid City last year, Secretary Washburn, who
is a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, has never publicly
commented on the case, which is under current review by the 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Additionally, he has declined numerous requests from
Indian Country Today Media Network to speak on the record regarding the
nationwide issues with the Indian Child Welfare Act and the friction it
creates between the tribes and the states under his purview.
At the Rapid City summit, Indian parents complained that each
completed checklist was met only with yet another checklist and more
court-ordered programs and classes, while non-Indian foster parents and
facilities across the state were being paid to care for over 750 Indian
children who were swept into foster care every year. Additionally, many
Indian grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, et al, testified
that even though they had become certified as foster homes, they were
denied the opportunity by the Department of Social Services to care for
their own relatives, in direct violation of the Indian Child Welfare
Act.
In response, the Oglala and Rosebud Sioux tribes and three Indian
parents in South Dakota filed a class action suit in March 2013 against
the state in federal court [Oglala v. Van Hunnik]. For the
first time in U.S. History, the two tribes have sued the state under the
doctrine of parens patriae—which means on behalf of all current and
future tribal members. Currently, the legal team for the plaintiffs are
awaiting a judge’s opinion in their suit, which asks for immediate
declaratory and injunctive relief from the daily practices, procedures
and routines in family courts that ignore ICWA.
The plaintiffs charge that for years, Native children have been taken
on virtually a daily basis by social services and placed into state
custody by judges and social workers who completely ignored the
provisions of both the Indian Child Welfare Act and even South Dakota
state law, according to the suit.

“[The social worker] said I couldn't see my kids because I didn’t
fill out a form properly,” according to one parent in South Dakota who
declined to be identified because of her fear of retaliation by the
social service workers in that state. “I said I had filled it out three
times already, how many more did she need? So she wrote down in her
report that, ‘Mother appears hostile.' Well, what did she expect? A
cupcake? I want to see my kids. I'm done with the forms. Let me see my
kids!”
“It's a classic legal strategy,” says Alicia Nevaquaya, an Eagletown,
Oklahoma-based lawyer and member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
“It's known as 'Drown them in paperwork to the point where you break
them.' And it's understandable that these parents are frustrated,
because it is, in fact, a 'hostile takeover' of your kids. They're
actively taking them away. But the facts in [Baby A] are clear that this
Native father was broken. They broke him into giving up.”
“I can't do it anymore,” he tearfully told a friend in the summer of
2013, around the same time that the Supreme Court handed down its ruling
on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. For 18 long months since his
release from jail, dad had fought to regain custody and was only given
more to do, which only gave the Pages more time to establish their “de
facto” parent status. After losing his mother, being left with an infant
to raise on his own, the arrest, the jail time, the separation from his
child and his quest to regain custody had taken its toll. He
reluctantly ceased reunification efforts, which were officially
terminated in June 2013. But—his parental rights and standing in this
case, however, remain in tact.
His only request was that his child be at least be placed with
ICWA-compliant relatives in Utah so that they could maintain some kind
of relationship. In early December 2013, Superior Court Judge Amy
Pellman ordered a change of custody ruling that under the law, the child
should be placed with the father’s ICWA-compliant relatives in Utah.
On December 12, 2013, the Pages filed a motion with the court to stay
the child’s removal to relatives to Utah, which was immediately
granted. From that point forward, attorneys for the foster couple began
referring to them as the “de facto” parents of Baby A and that they
therefore had the same rights as the child’s biological parents.
In spite of the legal wranglings by the foster couple and their new
legal team, two obstinate facts remain: Father’s rights in this case
have not been terminated; he still has standing under state and federal
law.
Says Reed, “So what if Dad was in jail? Does that entitle the state
to take his child away forever? No it does not. Prison inmates have more
parental rights than Indian parents. Unless there was clear and present
danger to this child or evidence of abuse—and I do not see that there
was—then they should have returned the kid to him by now. But they've
stacked the deck against him, just like they did with Dusten Brown.
“Even in prison, inmates still get access to their children and they
still get visitation, because maintaining the relationship with the
children is a central part of the rehabilitation process of the criminal
justice system in the United States. They have parenting classes for
both men and women in prison. So, whether the legal team wants to
confront reality or not, Dad [still has rights] under state and federal
law and I think they're putting the cart ahead of the horse. They have
yet to initiate a termination of parental rights hearing, so that has to
happen first. That's the law. Now the question arises: What active
efforts has the state made to help him in this unique situation to
reunify with this child? What could [DSS] have done to promote and
protect his parental rights with this Indian child? Very little, it
would appear.”

The Ugly Legacy of Termination and Relocation
How Baby A's dad wound up in California is also significant in the
history of Indian people in the United States. His Choctaw mother's
family was “relocated” to the Los Angeles area after the Indian
Relocation Act (Public Law 959, 1956), in which Indian families were
“invited” to move from their homelands and reservations to urban areas
in a program designed to “integrate and assimilate” Indian people into
mainstream culture. It was part of the termination policies of that era,
in which tribal rolls were closed and their assets liquidated.
Relocation is considered a failure by many Native historians and tribal
members, not only because of its further destruction of tribes, but also
its creation of the disconnect and widespread diaspora of Indian people
across the U.S. that exists to this day.
As a direct result of these policies, Los Angeles has the second
largest urban Indian population in the United States after New York
City. According to the U.S. Census, most of the tribal members in the
greater Los Angeles area are from out-of-state tribal communities.
Baby A's father fell into the familiar traps that have plagued urban
Indians since Relocation began. Isolated and depressed, he was already
under stress with the departure of the child's mother, caring for a
newborn and dealing with the grief of his mother's passing. Then came
his arrest, his time in jail, the removal of his child and the
subsequent Kafkaesque process of trying to regain custody. “He tried his
very best, he did,” says a friend of dad’s family. “But it wasn’t good
enough. He was broken and it seems like that's what the intention was.
To break him into giving up.”
All parties in the case have declined comment because CFS v. J.E. involves
a child. Nonetheless, last Tuesday, a number of courtwatchers, lawyers
(who do not represent any of the parties) and ICWA experts attended the
appellate hearing with the encouragement of the California Indian Legal
Services, who had posted a notice of the hearing on their website.
In her argument before the three-judge appellate panel, Alvino McGill
argued yet again that ICWA's preferred placement preferences are
“unconstitutional,” citing an old case involving Hawaiian Crown lands,
which baffled many onlookers in the courtroom. Additionally, Alvino
McGill argued that the lower court's ruling that “no good cause” existed
to allow the child to remain with the foster couple was “erroneous,” in
spite of the fact that the child has ICWA-compliant relatives who are
willing to take the child into their home.
“The case she brought before the panel actually works in ICWA's
favor, because the Supreme Court ultimately ruled [in the Hawaiian Crown
lands case] that tribes have a unique, political relationship with the
U.S. Government that the Native Hawaiians do not have,” says a lawyer
who attended the hearing. “[Baby A’s father] is a tribal member of the
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, which has a long-established political
relationship with the U.S. Government and the courts have consistently
upheld that relationship in numerous decisions, which is what the Indian
Child Welfare Act was intended to support: The continued existence of
the tribes. So she is therefore incorrect in her interpretation of both
[the Native Hawaiian] case and in her interpretation of
the constitutionality of ICWA.”
In the meantime, as the case of Children and Family Services v. J.E. et al.,
unfolds, Summer and Russell Page are seeking to exchange their status
as foster parents to adopting a Choctaw child who has living relatives
available and which would allow dad to maintain contact.
The California Second District Court of Appeals, under presiding
Justice Paul Turner, is expected to render its decision within the next
several months.

Please visit Indian Country Today Media Network for continuing coverage of this and other ICWA cases.

13 comments:

Interesting that Russell Ripley Page (or Rusty Page) and his wife Summer Lynn Page are both evangelical Christians and members of Grace Community Church is Sun Valley, Calif. Grace Church encourages its members to support adoptions through their Hands for Help Ministries in which Rusty has been as active proponent of foster care. Rusty Page attended the conservative Master's College in California, run by his own pastor at Grace Church, John MacArthur. They believe it's God's mission to call Christians to adopt. That's why they're fighting to keep Alexandria Page from her Choctaw father. As for their attorney Lori Alvino Mcgill, she wants to make a name for herself and get this case to the US Supreme Court.

Well, if they are evangelical Christians, this speaks volumes for where the source for their courage, dedication and great parenting skills comes from. I don't think any true parent - of any religion - would be complacent if a child they loved was taken from them and put into the hands of strangers. As for the motive of their attorney, she has been dedicated to serving them from the start, long before this case became public. Perhaps you could take a more compassionate and less cynical perspective?

The fact that they are evangelical and belong to a church that pushes the neo-colonial 'adoption ministry' philosophy makes them more untrustworthy, not more so: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/09/23/serial-adopter-how-evangelicals-are-perpetuating-orphan-market-151406

Yes, you are right. Sounds similar to the Baby Veronica case when the evangelical Christians like Elizabeth Morris threw their weight behind the adoptive couple. As for Russell and Summer Page, they supposedly were sued by another parent for trying to adopt their foster child. Now they want to claim "de facto" parent status and adopt Alexandria Page from her Choctaw father. Meanwhile, you can contact Hands for Hope Ministry at Grace Hills Church in which Russell (Rusty) Page tells Christians it's their mission to adopt. http://www.gracechurch.org/ministries/about.aspx?ministryid=138

Wasn't Lori Alvino McGill the same attorney for the bio mom Christy Maldonado in the baby Veronica case? And didn't she sue the Justice Department saying that ICWA was unconstitutional? The suit was essentially thrown out. And I remember she called Dusten Brown a "sperm donor." And now she's trying to say Russell and Summer Page are the "de facto" parents of 4 1/2 year old Alexandria? Since when are foster parents "de facto" parents? Russell Page and Summer Page should be called "Mr. and Mrs. Entitlement" because they think they are entitled to this child.

Interesting that Russell Page posted this comment on Grace Community Church "Hands for Hope" page about how foster care is meant only to be temporary:

"How can we take a child into our home for any duration of time, treat him like our own, and then give him back (sometimes into a situation that we still think isn’t right for him)? But after thinking and praying about it, we came to the simple realization that foster care, as with all service, is not unto ourselves, but rather unto God (Col. 3:23). That requires us to give up our own desires in order to meet the needs of another."

So, why are Russell and his wife Summer Page fighting to keep their foster child Alexandria from her biological father if Russell believes that he should give up his own desires to meet the needs of another?

On Friday August 15, the judges issued a remittitur in the CA ICWA case. Here's what I have:

"The order transferring custody of the minor to the R.s is reversed. The cause is remanded to the dependency court with directions to determine if good cause exists to deviate from the ICWA's adoptive placement preferences in accordance with this opinion. 41 pages; Kriegler-Turner-Mosk"

A remittitur refers to an appellate court sending a case back to the trial court so that the case can be retried, or so that trial court can enter an order that conforms to the findings of the appellate court.

the Baby Alexandria case was sent back to the lower courts. the appellate court essentially THREW OUT ALL lori Alvino mcGill's anti-ICWA arguments and the judges appeared to kick her back to her DC firm. As for what happens to the Choctaw father and the child, we don't know.

"Jump through hoops, hoops and more hoops" is the EXACT statement said to my daughter and son-in-law by their baby's attorney. The parents are indigent and asked for an attorney and was turned downed but the child was given an attorney. My daughter is a member of the Choctaw Tribe. In the beginning when the baby's maternal aunt filed for guardianship she lied and said my granddaughter was not native American and knew full well she was. When I confronted her attorney the court allowed the petition to be refiled and the aunt was never prosecuted for deliberately falsify information on a court document. How could a judge do this?!? This is a felony! When it was determined that this is an ICWA case, standards were never followed. There were never "active efforts" made with regards to "providing services to the family to prevent removal of an Indian child from his or her parent or Indian custodian nor "reunify an Indian child with his or her parent or Indian custodian after removal". On the contrary the parents were told if they didn't agree to the maternal aunt having guardianship they would be taken to trial and that it would get very ugly and they would lose anyway. So reluctantly they signed the guardianship papers with the understanding that they could petition the court when they were stable enough to care for their child. As soon as the aunt received the guardianship she stopped all visitation for the parents and myself. The parents have not seen their daughter in 2 yrs. The aunt took the child to live 100 miles away and had the case transferred to the county where she lives. As I said, the parents are indigent and without transportation and are being told by every agency there are no funds. to help them. Is there any one willing to take this case not just for the parents but for the rights of this Indian child to be raised by a non-Indian and not knowing her Indian family and heritage.

60s Scoop Settlement

Dawnland 2018

where were you adopted?

Every. Day.

adoptees take back adoption narrative and reject propaganda

#WeShallContinue

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

Join!

National Indigenous Survivors of Child Welfare Network (NISCWN)

Membership Application Form

The Network is open to all Indigenous and Foster Care Survivors any time.

Read this SERIES

our new book trailer

ADOPTION TRUTH

As the single largest unregulated industry in the United States, adoption is viewed as a benevolent action that results in the formation of “forever families.” The truth is that it is a very lucrative business with a known sales pitch. With profits last estimated at over $1.44 billion dollars a year, mothers who consider adoption for their babies need to be very aware that all of this promotion clouds the facts and only though independent research can they get an accurate account of what life might be like for both them and their child after signing the adoption paperwork.

TWO WORLDS Book 1 (second edition)

v

Two Worlds anthology (Vol. 1)

“…sometimes shocking, often an emotional read…this book is for individuals interested in the culture and history of the Native American Indian, but also on the reading lists of universities offering ethnic/culture/Native studies.”

“Well-researched and obviously a subject close to the heart of the authors/compilers, I found the extent of what can only be described as ‘child-snatching’ from the Native Americans quite staggering. It’s not something I was aware of before…”

“The individual pieces are open and honest and give a good insight into the turmoil of dislocation from family and tribe… I think it does have value and a story to tell. I was affected by the stories I read, and amazed by the facts presented…. because it is saying something new, interesting and often astonishing.”

Did you know?

Good words

I agree with you on the caring of “orphans” – true orphans, not “paper orphans” as Kathryn Joyce describes in her book, The Child Catchers. The most important thing to remember, however, is that the orphan’s original identity and family connection and heritage must remain intact and available to him or her forever. This business of adoption – and I do mean the multi-billion-dollar, unregulated business of adoption – of wiping out the child’s original identity, falsifying birth records with the adopters’ names, altering facts such as place of birth, severing familial kinship, must stop … Immediately. And the outrageous injustices foisted upon adoptees and their families for the past 100 years must be addressed and righted. We are faced today with six to seven million people who were basically legally kidnapped, sold to the highest bidder, their identities falsified, and placed in a lifelong, imposed witness protection program for which there is no legal recourse. Then told by church officials, agency and government functionaries that they have no right to know who they are, to do genealogy or learn about important family medical history, or know the identity of or associate with blood relatives. This is how the Judeo-Christian society has interpreted “caring for orphans”, for it’s own selfish interests and greed. Starting with Georgia Tann, the woman charged with kidnapping and selling 5,000 children, most of whom were given to the rich and powerful who then colluded with her to “seal” adoptions and cover their nefarious activities (see, for example, Gov. Herbert Lehman, NY, 1935).

We are #49 in the world?

Disclosure Statement

“We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”If you buy our books from Amazon, we receive a small payment.